Why would reading the art of computer programming be more impressive than reading fifty goosebump books?

Who’s to say you can’t read a book a week and also contemplate on it?

What about the people who read a lot of books on the same subject? Like going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of machine learning by reading a new book on the subject each week?

Number of books per year is a useful method for measuring the over all trend though. If the number hasn’t really changed, despite the introduction of digital technology, then it’s fair to say that digital technology hasn’t massively impacted the amount of books being sold.

Because reading goosebump books is easy and relaxing while reading Art of Computer Programming and doing exercises takes a lot of effort. You can do dozens of pages per evening even if you are tired, Knuth can not be read by that speed unless you already know it all. It is difference between going for a walk and running 10km. You can contemplate fun adventure books if you like, but it is not the same as learning algorithms.

Likewise, you can read hundred of pages of fun page-turner detective stories or pop science easily, but going through algebra or philosophy or something like takes way more effort and proceeds much more slowly - sometimes you will move by 2 pages per evening because understanding it requires more effort.

People are different though. I have a degree and I hire/manage people, and as such I’m eligible to work as an examiner in my country. Our universities want business to cooperate with education, so parts of the examination staff are outside managers.

Because of this I keep fairly up to date with the art of programming, and I can easily go through an average programming book and it’s exercises, much easier than if I were to read through a piece of Lovecraft fiction.

Someone familiar with Greek mythology and no programming knowledge would have it the other way around.

Which one of us deserve respect? Is it the effort bit? So that I’m only impressive when I challenge myself?

I think it’s narrow minded. To me effort and challenge isn’t impressive on their own. What is impressive is finding out what you want to do, and then doing it. And if that’s reading 50 goosebump books in a year, or, going through the art of programming, we’ll then that’s about equal in my book. On top of that there is the self-improvement bit, I’m all for it, but only when you actually want to do it. There is nothing sadder, to me, than people who slave away in the self-improvement hamster wheel, not because they really want to, but because they think they have to.

It still doesn’t really have anything to do with book sales statistics, but I don’t think you can really say much about people, even if you knew the statistics of what they were reading.

Knuth (art of programming) is no average programming book. It is good book and worth effort, but it is no easy read.

You can read lovercraft or goosebump without any prerequisite knowledge. Greek or otherwise. Authors took care and effort to make it so. They succeeded. It was intentionally written to be pleasant and easy read, both their goal and skills were unlike those of Knuth. I used to read a lot of books like that, it is not that I would think bad of author of those books. I appreciate them for what they are.

Reading goosebump book and art of programming are not comparable actions. It is good argument for why counting books per year without context makes no sense.

I’ll assume that you haven’t read a whole lot of lovecraft, because he really does the reader no favors, using references to classic mythology to describe whole sets of scenery and moods. Making it pretty much impossible to read quite a few of the stories if you’re unfamiliar with some obscure Greek myth.

I have read Knuth though them being part of the CS curriculum, back when I took my degree. They are very revered too, and reasonable so, because they are hard to fault. I personally think they are a needlessly waste of your time though. There are much more approachable books, that’ll teach you the same content in a much friendlier way.

I don’t think we’ll agree though. Especially if you hold harder programming books in higher regard than harder fiction. It took me significantly more effort to go through Dostoyevsky than it did me to go through Knuth, for instance.

And you still haven’t pointed out who exactly the numbers are a useless metric. If book sales aren’t down, isn’t it fair to say, that people are still buying books?

I just ignored those parts. When I read for pleasure, I happily not understand references like that and enjoy the rest. It is not like Lovercraft story mattered for literally anything, I rarely care about scenery anyway and Greek references even less. So, it is fine for me to skim those parts.

There are differently difficult books and trying to pretend that goosebump has anything to do with Dostoyevsky or whatever is odd. As for waste of time, if Knuth is waste of time, so are there adventures. They are literally meant for that.

I liked Dostoyevsky, dunno why that book I read would be difficult to read book. Maybe you read different book or worst translation.

I don't think original comments in thread we both joined had anything to do with sales.

You can bring it to the trivial case where you compare reading one children's book with reading a single volume of the art of computer programming.

I probably really missing the point and I really don't see, the goal should be anything else than reading a book.

There is a difference between reading and learning. When I read, that's exactly what I am doing.

When I need to learn something, I might read, watch lectures, do tutorials. If I am reading "Art of Computer Programming" for fun, then I would say that I am reading. But if I am reading it for learning, then I would say I am working or studying.

I agree. In particular, I don't think reading fiction is in any way better than watching TV. Either way, you're doing it for entertainment, and getting nothing more out of it. Not even shared cultural context, as these days the shared culture is mostly TV-oriented.

Even within fiction, there's wiggle room. Hell, I'd even say not all TV is just entertainment. There's a big difference between reading "Pachinko" and "50 Shades Freed".

But yeah, I notice a lot of people like to brag about quantity of books read and claim that makes them learned. It would be like going to McDonald's every day and saying you have a refined palate.

> not all TV is just entertainment

Certainly, not all television is entertainment but in my experience the whole medium itself tends to get looked down upon and there's a lot of ridiculous virtue-signaling involved.

Compared to the people I interact with I read a fair bit, I'd say higher than average. However, I also watch the occasional documentary / tv show. In social settings I usually don't bring up what I'm reading as I find it's not a socially wise thing to do unless I'm certain the other party has similar reading habits to mine. In general I usually bring up what I've watched recently. What I find amusing are the subtle jabs I get for 'wasting my time watching tv' from people who I'm sure don't read as much as I do.

To me television is just another medium, nothing more, nothing less. It has its advantages and disadvantages, sure, but I've learned just as much if not more from extremely well done lectures / documentaries as I have from books. Even from watching regular 'tv shows' for entertainment purposes I've learned quite a bit as a lot of shows these days are extremely detailed (e.g. Mr. Robot) and there's quite a lot to learn or think about if you pay enough attention.

I don't play video games as much these days, but I also find the amount of disdain people hold for the entire medium is unwarranted IMHO.

For what I'm watching right now - I'm enjoying James Burke's Connections which was recommended here on HN a while back. I highly recommend others to watch it if they haven't!

> not all television is entertainment

This made me chuckle. I was trying to imply that things can be more than entertainment. Even things that are billed as straight up documentaries can hold some entertainment value.

And I agree with you, people like to look down on television even though it's just another medium. I've recently watched The Good Place, which is pretty much a sitcom, but they do introduce you to various philosophical concepts. Both directly and indirectly.

Penn Jillette said Mickey Dolenz has the best quote about video games he's ever heard: Video games are the new rock and roll. It's the thing the parents don't get. So Penn watches his kids play Minecraft and he doesn't get it, but he knows he doesn't get it so he just lets them discover their own world.

Yes, this was my point. You expressed it better, thanks.

Advantages of written fiction over TV: Greater imagination, improved vocabulary, greater degree of escapism, lack of commercials, a more active degree of concentration required

(which leads to less 'binge-ing').

> (which leads to less 'binge-ing')

Disagree in my personal case; I binge on novel series just as hard - and often harder - as I do on TV series.

My dad actually refuses to read anything good anymore because he doesn't think he has the self control to avoid binging on series. For most people though, they read slowly enough that instead of watching 15 episodes of a show in a row they work through one book, which feels like a slower pace.

There is a difference in the level of "fulfillment", the degree of satisfaction that one can only earn from active engagement. Binge-ing on Netflix series is easier, more passive, to the extent where it has to poke you after 3 episodes to make sure you're still conscious.

I wouldn't call reading fiction "active engagement". The only activity in that is turning pages and occasionally changing the way you sit.

(Or maybe it's just me. Either I don't know how to read books properly, or have all the necessary activities running as background processes in my head, not requiring conscious control.)

Personal anecdote: Someone in my high school class nearly failed a course after she picked up a particularly engaging series.

It was interesting to hear her talk about how her parents punished her by prohibiting her from reading for the month.

Wow that's pretty much me. During high school I was always forbidden spending any allowance for books, so I would do it secretly. Since I'm in eastern europe and books are expensive I very quickly turned to english editions, preferably paperback and as my interest in sci-fi and fantasy grew I was usually choosing the thickest bricks available in my local bookstore.

Getting a Kindle for my 18 birthday from my friends was a total revelation since at this point I was reading completely in english and all of a sudden got access to pretty much every book ever.

Fiction as in "Hunger Games," maybe. But I think that literary fiction can be more more demanding and more edifying than almost any non-fiction or technical writing. I tend to be suspicious of people whose reading lists just look like book club recommendations from Bill Gates and Elon Musk.

There is nothing to be gained from reading fiction? :/

> It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable, one might guess -- that we will always learn more about human life and personality from novels than from scientific psychology.

-- Noam Chomsky

Exactly. I read a lot of Sci Fi novels and while some of them are pulpy and low brow many are mind expanding. If nothing else it makes one think, "What if?" and "What could be?"

> Either way, you're doing it for entertainment

God forbid.

Nothing wrong with that; I just take issue with people who read light fiction but go on talking how books are better on the mind than TV. That kind of reading isn't. Textbooks are.

Doesn’t reading fiction require more imagination and active work than watching TV?

Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.

> Doesn’t reading fiction require more imagination and active work than watching TV?

Theoretically, yes. But does this effort develop into skills useful in life? If not, then it's just entertainment.

> Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.

I think so too! I love reading good fiction, and binding on good novel series just as much as I love binging on TV series! I just have issues with this popular notion that reading any book instead of watching TV makes you a smarter person, given that those books are usually light fiction, and not even something mind-expanding like e.g. some science fiction works.

> But does this effort develop into skills useful in life?

If you don't think that having an active imagination and being able to visualize a concept is a useful skill in life, then I don't know what else to say.

There's imagination, and there's imagination. I doubt novels will help you develop imagination the way e.g. solving spatial puzzles in your head will.

In my experience, prose doesn't force, or even encourage you to improve your imagination; it merely exercises your current levels. Kind of like opting for stairs instead of elevator when going up one floor - it doesn't really improve anything in your health, unless you're barely fit to walk, and is not a substitute for exercise that makes you reach the limits of your muscles.

Which fiction?

I know many people like to set goals on goodreads to read N number of books a year. I really wish there was a better metric used. Even number of words would be a massive improvement but you'd need that data for every (most) books. Which amazon could do rather easily...